Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[Patashu]

Accept no imitations ---

Everything God has, Satan has a cheap imitation for --- including documentation.

All these holy texts have been around for a while too. By your criteria they count as evidence just as much as the bible. Do you really want this?

 

[Patashu]

Yes --- I'm sorry, but that is hard for me to understand. Creation Science is to me an oxymoron.

I'm not sure the point you're making with this carboniferous stuff embedded here and there, but I do know that before the Flood, this planet was inhabited by a race that could do things beyond our wildest science. Walk through walls, teleport, walk on the moon, whatever. And if this explanation doesn't have any place on someone's clipboard, that's too bad.

So, um - if they could walk on the moon, where are the footprints?

Did you pick a bad example?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Yes --- I'm sorry, but that is hard for me to understand. Creation Science is to me an oxymoron.

I'm not sure the point you're making with this carboniferous stuff embedded here and there, but I do know that before the Flood, this planet was inhabited by a race that could do things beyond our wildest science. Walk through walls, teleport, walk on the moon, whatever. And if this explanation doesn't have any place on someone's clipboard, that's too bad.

I must admit one thing; you have the wildest imagination. So according to you the human race as taken a step backwards, should we expect to find human fossils on the moon.

The Carboniferous stuff as you call it totally destroys the creationist’s suppositions on the age of the earth, and that the coal measures were deposited during Noah’s flood.

In essence the bible is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how can you tell Satan's imitations from the real deal? What if the Bible is itself an imitation of, say, the Qu'ran? Or the Vedic texts? Or the Wiccan Rede ()?

I think we've been over this many times before.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, um - if they could walk on the moon, where are the footprints?

Did you pick a bad example?

Actually the moon was a freebie. Whether angels ("sons of God" in Genesis 6) actually walked on the moon is not documented in the Scriptures.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Carboniferous stuff as you call it totally destroys the creationist’s suppositions on the age of the earth, and that the coal measures were deposited during Noah’s flood.

And what is my supposition on the age of the earth, Chordates? Any idea? How old is this earth according to AV1611VET?

(I've only been saying it for almost two years now.)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think we've been over this many times before.

And as I recall, you dodged the question then as well. Nevertheless, I will get an answer one of these days .

 

[Patashu]

And what is my supposition on the age of the earth, Chordates? Any idea? How old is this earth according to AV1611VET?

(I've only been saying it for almost two years now.)

Approximately 6 thousand years old.

You don't actually think that it's also 4 billion years old at the same time; you just say that to dodge the question whenever someone brings up the dating method of the week.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It was inhospitable to man, and everything, if you recall, was made for us. We were in Eden. So, now we need to get the plants of Eden to the far away swamps. That takes some time. Obviously. How you gonna wave that one away?

What I recall is that according to the Bible God created every plant, looked at his creation and declared it very good and then planted the Garden in Eden after the earth had brought forth all the plants. So your total nonsense idea of the most of the earth being inhospitable and plants and animals migrating out from Eden is not even Biblical.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

And what is my supposition on the age of the earth, Chordates? Any idea? How old is this earth according to AV1611VET?

(I've only been saying it for almost two years now.)

If I’ve got it right, you think the Earth is less than 10 thousand years old. If I am wrong I apologise.

There is absolutely no physical evidence to support creationist supposition; indeed all evidence point to the contrary, including Carboniferous coal measure formation.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

It was inhospitable to man, and everything, if you recall, was made for us. We were in Eden. So, now we need to get the plants of Eden to the far away swamps. That takes some time. Obviously. How you gonna wave that one away?

EASY

You are tying yourself up in knots. According to creationists the coal measures were formed during Noah’s flood, long after man had left the Garden of Eden. Therefore flowering plants even by bible terminology were world wide, just as humans had spread, world wide.

So by the time of Noah’s flood, humans would have cultivated all their crops from flowering plants, all the grazers of the world would have needed grass to survive, pollinators would have needed flowers, the list could go on and on.

Unless of course you are saying nothing recognisable to us existed before the flood.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The Pennsylvanian strata exhibit extraordinary variations in thickness and composition both laterally and vertically because of the extremely varied environmental conditions under which they formed. In many places, individual sedimentary units are only a few inches thick, and only a few units exceed 30 feet thick. Sandstones and shales commonly grade laterally into each other, and shales may interfinger with and grade laterally and vertically into limestones and coals. The underclays, coals, black shales, and some limestones, however, display remarkable lateral continuity for such thin units. Some coal seams have been laterally traced (correlated) in mines, outcrops, and subsurface drill records over areas comprising several states.

The rapid and frequent changes in depositional environments during Pennsylvanian time produced regular or cyclical successions of sandstone, shale, limestone, and coal in response to the shifting shoreline. Each succession of these lithologies, called a cyclothem, consists of a series of marine and nonmarine rock units that record a complete cycle of marine invasion and retreat. Geologists have determined, after extensive studies of the Pennsylvanian strata in the Midwest, that an “ideally” complete cyclothem consists of ten sedimentary units (see illustration on following page contrasting the model of an “ideal” cyclothem with a model showing the dynamic relationships between the various members of a typical cyclothem).

Link

I just had to put this in, to show the people that do not know, the varied deposition environments needed to produce a cyclothem. No good blaming Noah’s flood it would never work

 

[Naraoia]

Today is not yesterday. Now, if you can prove that plants were not mostly created, and planted in the garden, why, you would have a point. Until then, of course, you certainly do not in any way, shape or form. See the problem with that?

I think the burden of proof lies on the ones who say plants were just created and stuck in the Garden of Eden (or that the Garden existed...) because, you see, all the fossil-bearing sediments and all the datable rocks of the world say otherwise. *shrug*

But that's what all these wonderfully knowledgeable geologists are for. Listen to them.

 

[Split Rock]

Or, 5000 years ago, flowering plants arrive on the scene of the swamp.

Is there a reason why God only put flowering plants in the garden of Eden, and put conifers, ferns, cycads, tree ferns, horsetails, mosses, etc. everywhere else?

Here is what the hell it is..they all were created, but not in the swamp. So, of the swamp plants, which ones migrated, and which ones, if any were created there. That is the question.

Migrating plants? Are they coconuts? (silly Monty Python reference)

Prove it. Silly fairy tale.

Does this fairy tale have a talking snake?

The bible is evidence. Aside from that, science has nothing but wild guesses.

No, the "wild guesses" are your interpretations of scripture that put dead people on the moon, spirits inside the earth, and flood waters on Mars, etc.

The evidence mounts, the plants of Eden, by and large just did not get there yet!

Again I have to ask why God didn't put any flowering plants outside the Garden in the first place, when He put every other plant outside.

Wooooaaaahhhhhhhh. Nosir. They are pre flood.

If that is so, then all those fossils associated with these coal seams, and the layers below and just above were not put there by The Flood. Where did they come from?

So called by you, not me. That is the old passe flood geology.

Glad we replaced the "old passe" Flood Geology with the new "improved" Flood geology.

They that assume the flood as the be all end all have problems, yes, as do you. I, thankfully, am laughing.

That's fine, you continue to give us plenty of laughter, dad!

 

[keith99]

You should probably add in just how much coal there is and how often there is recognizable fossil evidence in it.

Something that would reduce the incidence of Grasses by a factor of 100 is enough to nmake the lack quite reasonable with a small number of fossils.

Somehow I think the total is far from small.

I am not saying there are no grasses and flowers, what the evidence tells us, is that there were no flowering plants or grasses, including logs of oak, elm, beach, chestnut and so on and so forth.
Perhaps you are also suggesting every grass plant in the world uprooted itself so it could float away.

So I will reword it

In the Carboniferous coal seams from around the world, no part (i.e. roots, trunks, branches, flowers, seeds etc) of any flowering plant or grass is found.

Evolution easily answers that, they had not evolved yet.

Most plants are distinguished by they seeds, because seeds are very robust and fossilise very well, this includes the seeds of flowering plants and grasses, nether of which have ever been found in the carboniferous coal measures.

 

[keith99]

Aren't there also occasional animal fossils found in coal? Are there some cases where these fossils have undigested stomach contents? No grass seeds there either?

The number of species of flowering plants is estimated to be in the range of 250,000 to 400,000. Not only this, but they dominate the world of flora. Let’s take Africa for example, its rain forests are dominated by flowering plants and its savanna is dominated by grasses. All over the world you can find flowering plants, in all recent sedimentary basins their fossils are found, in essence these plants fossilize well.

They did not float away, in many cases how could they, trees such as oak and beech have extensive root systems, they seeds are buried by animals such as jays and squirrels, and in the case of grasses, millions of tons of pollen are produces every years, all of which are commonly found fossilized.

So you will have to do better than the answer you give i.e. they all floated away.

In fact the right answer is even simpler than that, “there were no flowering plants during the Carboniferous”. Plant evolution would take another ~200 millions years to come up with flowering plants.

 

[atomweaver]

What He made was largely in the garden, including us, and in the sea there, of course. That was very habitable. Now, I call in an eyewitness, that saw the actual creation, to the stand here, to testify about the rest of the earth.

And where are the two additional Biblically-mandated eyewitnesses to this account, if we're going down the legal-testimony route?

Prov 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

I don't see anything above which says that only the Garden of Eden was habitable... I do see someone 'rejoicing in the habitable part', but equating that with (only) the Garden is an interpretation of your own creation... The author could just as easily have been talking about not rejoicing at the bottom of the ocean, or at the North Pole.

Keep interpreting.

You didn't really think I made this stuff up, did you??

Did you make up these quotes from the Bible? No.
Do you interpret these quotes so as to support your own angle? Yes.

Keep interpreting.

 

[mpok1519]

how come God couldn't have angels plant the seeds?

 

[dad]

What I recall is that according to the Bible God created every plant, looked at his creation and declared it very good and then planted the Garden in Eden after the earth had brought forth all the plants. So your total nonsense idea of the most of the earth being inhospitable and plants and animals migrating out from Eden is not even Biblical.

Well, selective recall, I suppose is fine. But I prefer to look at the actual evidence, in this case, the text.

Gen 1: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.


I do not see where it says every patch of planet earth there. I take it to refer to Eden, primarily, because, on this third day, that is where He planted the plants, far as I can tell. (Excepting some, it seems likely on the earth at large as well, that needed to be there, like some creatures, helping to get it more hospitable)

We can now look to the next chapter, where it was already finished, and go back for a close up of the plants issue, and how it was actually done.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


You cannot prove from this, that ALL plants were planted all over the earth. That is the way God tells it.

 

[dad]

EASY

You are tying yourself up in knots.

No, I am not the one tripping here.

According to creationists the coal measures were formed during Noah’s flood, long after man had left the Garden of Eden.

No, false. That is the old flood geology viewpoint. I don't buy that.

Therefore flowering plants even by bible terminology were world wide, just as humans had spread, world wide.

Eventually, yes, but I don't see humans in the coal either, do you!!? The evidence mounts!

So by the time of Noah’s flood, humans would have cultivated all their crops from flowering plants, all the grazers of the world would have needed grass to survive, pollinators would have needed flowers, the list could go on and on.

Forget the strawman about the flood.

Unless of course you are saying nothing recognisable to us existed before the flood.

No, I am saying the coal was here before the flood apparently, at least much of it.